Thursday, August 1, 2013

The Rhetoric of "Fear-driven" Theology

I don't often engage in extended debates on blogs but I've been carrying on a conversation over at Emerging Scholars Blog with David Williams.  Williams has begun a series entitled "Why You Must Be Dying to Be a Christian Scholar" (part two is here and this is where my thoughts are contained in the comments section).

David is seeking to be a pastor to scholars.  Here are his own words:
The short answer is that I am doing what I can to help Christian scholars to integrate their faith with their scholarship. I am anInterVarsity Graduate & Faculty Ministries staff person serving the students and faculty of New York University. So while I may not be a scholar per se, I am a pastor for scholars — for graduate students, faculty, and others engaged in post-graduate education. My calling is to help scholars and aspiring scholars to live out their callings by inviting and encouraging them to allow their faith to enrich their scholarship and to allow their scholarship to inform their faith.
David begins in part of one of his series speaking about his time at Westminster Theological Seminary when the controversy regarding Peter Enns was in full swing.  His main goal is to speak to the issue of how fear can motivate theological students and even theologians.  This fear can cause one to refuse to look at evidence in an open manner.  Along the way he makes some comments that I took issue with in regards to those who practice apologetics.  In particular he spoke of a division on the Westminster staff between those who practice biblical studies and those on the theological/apologetic faculty.  His presentation left no illusions as to who, in his mind, were the open minded ones.  He then went on to state:
So much of apologetics is just fear-driven theology. Too many apologetics are no more than just so stories that we tell ourselves to feel more secure.
Here are my comments and David's responses in italics.
___________________

David,

1. Your comments regarding apologetics seem like an excessive psychologizing of one’s opponents–especially these comments: “So much of apologetics is just fear-driven theology. Too many apologetics are no more than just so stories that we tell ourselves to feel more secure.” This is not argument but borders on name-calling.

2. You speak of the resurrection of Jesus as being seemingly an irreducible minimum of Christian orthodoxy (“Would it logically entail that Jesus is not risen?”). What of different conceptions of the resurrection of Jesus? John Dominic Crossan has argued that the body of Jesus may have been eaten by dogs and the resurrection is a metaphor. John Shelby Spong argues the resurrection is something that happens inside of Peter and the other the disciples and not an event in history. Are these acceptable conceptions of the resurrection of Jesus? If not, are those who would argue against them motivated by fear and “just so” stories? 

Richard, thank you so much for commenting.
1. Let me clarify, I did not say, “All apologetics is just fear-driven theology.” I have a great deal of appreciation for apologetics when it is done well–when it is done without overreaching, special pleading and so on. In fact, I think that it is an integral part of the Christian scholar’s vocation to engage in apologetics where necessary. And I am more than happy to point to contemporary scholars who have taken up the task of Christian apologetics in very constructive ways: N.T. Wright, Alvin Plantinga, David Bentley Hart, Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, to name a few.

Nor did I necessarily mean those comments as a cheap dismissal of those with whom I disagree. What I am trying to do is speak to a pastoral concern, a spiritual condition–namely, fear that someone is going to take my faith or my assurance of salvation away from me–that keeps many people from engaging difficult data honestly. I think fear is a major road-block to a faithful integration of Christian faith and serious scholarship. I don’t know how many times I have seen people enabled to move forward in studying tough stuff by taking the time to step back and deal with their anxieties. I know I was only enabled to move out of a sort of knee-jerk defensiveness because I know I was only enabled to move out of a sort of knee-jerk defensiveness because I had teachers who showed me with their lives that Christian courage and intellectual honesty must go hand-in-hand.
2. That’s a really, really good question. Personally, I’m with N.T. Wright, Richard Hays and others in thinking that Crossan, Spong, & co. have not made their case for early Christians having taken resurrection as either a metaphor or a purely subjective experience. And I clearly do not think Spong or Crossan’s view of the resurrection is reconcilable with historic, mere Christianity.
As for people’s motives for arguing the case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, fear may be part of it. Of course. We are complex creatures. “And,” as Paul says, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile….” If I’m honest, Crossan and Spong’s views give me the heebie-jeebies. I’ve staked an awful lot of my life on the empty tomb. So, clearly, I don’t approach this question without some admixture of motives.
Nevertheless, I’m trying to be as balanced as I can in dealing with the evidence. While Wright’s case has a few chinks in it (e.g., there were, it seems to me, probably some ancient Jews who did not conceive of ‘anastasis’ as being bodily), I still think that his argument and conclusion is far more compelling than Crossan, Spong, et al. But, of course, I have a vested interest in Wright being right on this point and I need to own that fact.
Does that help any?

David,

Thanks for your quick reply. Your comments are somewhat helpful but in others ways they miss the mark (at least for me!).

1. I don’t mean to be tedious but I did not say you said that “All apologetics is just fear-driven theology.” I very specifically quoted your original statement: “So much of apologetics is just fear-driven theology. Too many apologetics are no more than just so stories that we tell ourselves to feel more secure.” You, of course, did not use the word “all” but you did tend to dismiss “so much” of apologetics. You mention a number of names you find to be responsible apologists and none of them are in the Westminster tradition which you seemingly dismissed in your first post. Am I to assume that you believe the Westminster theological and apologetics faculty is pushing “fear-driven theology?”
2. You wrote: “Nor did I necessarily mean those comments as a cheap dismissal of those with whom I disagree.” I wonder how much latitude is laden in the word “necessarily?” The way I read your statement makes me wonder if you meaning to engage in a “cheap dismissal” of some of those you disagree with but not necessarily “all.” This would seem to fit the tone of your posts–at least to me.
3. Are you conflating your graduate school experiences at Westminster with those who are at the level of scholarship? I’m sure many who are entering their graduate level theological training face various levels of fear. But you seem to be claiming more. You structured the division at Westminster between Biblical studies professors and those from the theological/apologetics faculty. You seem to be arguing that the theological/apologetic side was motivated by fear rather than studied, reasoned arguments. Now, of course, you didn’t mention names but since you are speaking of theological/apologetic faculty at Westminster it’s not too hard to figure out who you are referring to with your pschologizing of fear as the (primary?) motive behind their concerns with Peter Enns. Does it further the cause of Christian scholarship to accuse those who disagree with you and your preferred teachers as motivated by fear? Shall we write off the arguments of someone like Greg Beale–someone who has examined the argumentation of Enns and yet argues that Enns’ views are deficient– as so much fear-mongering?
Richard, 
I began my initial post with a disclaimer and it seems I should add another: Not only am I neither a scholar nor the son of a scholar, neither am I a psychologist. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” As I already said, we’re all complex creatures, and I really have no interest in teasing out the motives underlying the actions and arguments of Westminster’s Apologetics and Theology faculty. That’s between them and God.
My interest is much more in the present and in enabling Christian scholars to do their work with integrity. In my experience, one cannot honestly engage with data if one is afraid to look at it or if one is more inclined to explain it away than to explain it. Fear prevents Christians from dealing with data. Fear makes us rely on shoddy slippery-slope arguments. If that’s not your problem, then good for you. But a lot of people can relate to fearful defensiveness as being the motive behind their “ready defense.”
The point of my posts is not to reopen the Westminster controversy, but rather to cast a vision for the Christian scholar’s vocation. The Westminster controversy played a significant role in shaping that vision (and me!) and that’s why I bring it up. There may be a place to get into the details of that debate, but this comment thread is probably not it.
David,
Thanks for the continued interaction. I still think we may be missing each other a bit. I recognize your main point about fear and your desire to help scholars and would-be scholars engage in the pursuit of truth with openness and without fear. I’m not looking to reopen the Westminster controversy or go over its details. You brought up the division at Westminster between those who pursued biblical studies and those who were part of theological/apologetic faculty. You then later state that, “So much of apologetics is just fear-driven theology. Too many apologetics are no more than just so stories that we tell ourselves to feel more secure.” Now you mention you “have no interest in teasing out the motives underlying the actions and arguments of Westminster’s Apologetics and Theology faculty.” That’s fine. My question is how do you justify your assertion that “so much of apologetics is just fear-driven theology”? More specifically, is this a result of the conclusions drawn by those who seek to defend certain theological items? Is the accusation of “fear-driven” theology merely the result of someone holding different theological conclusions than you do? Since you wisely refuse to speculate on the internal states of certain Westminster faculty how is it that you justify your assertion of “fear-driven” theology? If I, for example, come to conclusions regarding the historicity of Adam that (1) are in conflict with Peter Enns and the Biologos crowd and (2) are more in line with a traditional viewpoint does this render my desire to defend this item a result of “fear-driven” theology? Again, the issue is how do you justify your assertion? How does one know when they are confronting “fear-driven” theology? If it’s not the conclusions that warrant the charge perhaps it is the method of reasoning involved. You mention “shoddy slippery-slope arguments.” Is this the element that is indicative of “fear-driven” theology? Can you help me with this? It still appears to me that some of your comments border on psychologizing name-calling.
__________________________________

My chief concern in this interchange is how some resort to name-calling to argue against more conservative theological positions.  It is too easy to resort to tossing around the charge of being "fear-driven" without actually engaging in rational theological debate.

*NOTE: Part two of this post is HERE which gives one more exchange.